Search This Blog

Monday, April 27, 2009

An argument (but, to be blunt, it frequently is not made as an argument but merely as an assertion) against the reality of God's existence which is popular amongst village-atheists-with-intenet-connections is that the God-of-the-Bible is a moral monster.

Following is my response directly to "KairosFocus" (and more indirectly, to the general tone of comments made in the DI thread):

I seems to me that you [that is, "KairosFocus"] don't get around to explicitly answering the question you've posed -- note, I said "explicitly." Here's my attempt to draw out, and to a degree expand upon, the implicit argument you're presenting:

1) There exists that which is properly called 'morally evil' -- and the atheist cannot, upon pain of incoherence (and willful incoherence is itself a moral evil), simultaneously deny this reality while asserting that the God-of-the-Bible is a moral monster.

1a) The fact that there is moral evil is proof that moral good exists; for, to say that "thus-and-such is a moral evil" is a meaningless assertion if there exists-not that against which the "thus-and-such" is a violation.

1b) BUT, neither good nor evil are compossible with any atheistic/materialistic/naturalistic worldview.

For, IF the world itself *just is* (i.e. the world was not intended-and-created, but rather exists in its own right) -- and, after all, this belief/assertion is a primary and non-negotiable commitment of atheism -- THEN there can exist only that which is grounded in, and reducible to, matter-energy moving in time-space.

AND, since 'good' and 'evil' are *not* grounded in, nor reducible to, matter-energy moving in time-space, then no such things can possibly exist were it indeed the case that the world is not created, but rather exists simply and without need of further explanation.

1b.1) THUS, in the very act of making the accusation that "the God-of-the-Bible is a moral monster," the atheist has asserted that atheism -- the assertion that there exists no Creator-God whatsoever -- is an assertion from a false worldview. That is, the particular atheist admits that there is, and that he knows that there is, some being who may properly be called 'God.'

1b.2) THUS, if he will be logically consistent (which is itself, after all, a moral obligation), the atheist must give over his atheism and admit that the world was intended-and-created; which is to say, that there exists a Creator-God.

1b.2a) AND, if he will not be thus logically consistent, then we Christians have no logical (nor moral) obligation to take him -- or his "objections" to the God-of-the-Bible -- seriously. For, he proves himself to be intellectually dishonest (which is to say, to be worse than a mere liar); he proves by his very act of willfully embracing logical inconsistency that it is logically impossible for us to argue with him, for there are no rules to which any "argument" he presents will adhere. I, myself, would go further and argue that not only is it logically impossible to argue with such a person, but also that it is immoral to (pretend to) attempt to do so; that one has the moral obligation either: to ignore him; or, to attempt to help him admit and correct his underlying problem, which is hatred of the truth and the good.

So, on the assumption that we are now dealing with an erstwhile atheist, perhaps we can procede:

2) The assertion that "the God-of-the-Bible is a moral monster" is seen to contain the unstated (and doubtless unrecognized) assumption that, while there is indeed a God, the God-of-the-Bible is not the *real/ultimate* God.

2a) For, after all, the "ultimate" God is that being in whom all things ultimately are rooted and have their being -- else, one ends up with the infinite regress problem of positing an infinite series of "Gods," each of whom it becomes epistemologically necessary to assert, in never-ending sequence, is ontologically prior to the one currently under consideration.

3) Positing that "the Good" -- that by which one is justified even in asserting that "the God-of-the-Bible is a moral monster" -- exists in its own right (as per the false paradox of the Euthryphro dilemma) turns out to be as incoherent as asserting that the physical world exists in its own right. That is, "the Good" must also be rooted in, have its existence in, the "ultimate" God.

3a) For, not only is "the Good" semantically contained within the "all things" which are and must be ultimately rooted in the "ultimate" God, but also "the Good" is inter-personal and relational -- one cannot coherently speak of "the Good" and of the moral obligation to accord with it (nor of its violation, that is, of moral evil) without implying a plurality of persons: if there exist-not persons (emphasis on the plural), or should there exist a plurality of persons but with no relationship one to the other, then there exists nothing, nor can exist anything, properly called "good."

3a.1) Moral evil just is the violation of the interpersonal relationship amongst a plurality of persons. Even to use the word 'violation' assumes there is something which is proper and of which violation is possible.

3b) To reiterate: "the Good" -- that by which one is justified even in asserting that "the God-of-the-Bible is a moral monster" -- does not exist in its own right. Rather, its existence, as with that of all other existing things, is grounded in the reality and existence of "ultimate" God.

4) So, our erstwhile atheist, if wishing to maintain his assertion that "the God-of-the-Bible is a moral monster," logically must adopt a position of gnosticism; that is, that there is, indeed, an *ultimate* God-who-is-Good, but that the God-of-the-Bible cannot this *real* God.

4a) BUT, this throws us right back into an infinite regress of an ever-receding, ontologically-prior, "real" God, by the Goodness of whom we are judging the so-called God currently under consideration to be morally deficient.

4a.1) For, after all, our erstwhile atheist's argument against the God-of-the-Bible rests upon the appeal to one's emotional response to the moral evil (and/or natural evil) which exists in the world and the existence of which the God-of-the-Bible, whom we Christians say *is* the real God, allows. Going further, our erstwhile atheist's argument is not only that God-of-the-Bible allows moral evil (and/or natural evil), but that he both commits and commands moral evil.

4a.2) BUT, if this argument is valid against the God-of-the-Bible, then it is equally valid against the God-Before-The-God-of-the-Bible. And, if it is valid against *that* God, then it is valid against the one before him, world without end (amen, amen).

4b) So, our erstwhile atheist logically must abandon gnosticism as fruitless and self-defeating, for it devours itself; the very percieved problem (real or imagined) on the basis of which one adapts gnosticism in the first place cannot be answered by it, and, in fact, if the percieved problem is real, then it apples as fully to gnosticism as to non-gnosticism.

4c) Or, our erstwhile atheist, if wishing to maintain his rejection of the God-of-the-Bible, must maintain that there exists some morally valid, even if unknown-to-us, reason that the "real" God allows the "evil" of the God-of-the-Bible.

4c.1) Which is to say that there exists some morally valid, even if unknown-to-us, reason that the God-of-the-Bible allows evil to exist in his Creation.

4c.2) Which is to say that there exists some morally valid, even if unknown-to-us, reason that the God-of-the-Bible does and/or commands that which we emotionally reject as being evil, or that which would indeed be evil when commanded by a mere human being.

5) To reiterate, the existence of "the Good," as with all things which exist, is and must rooted in the God-Who-Exists (and whom, as we Christians know, just happens to be the God-of-the-Bible).

5a) To assert that the God-Who-Exists is morally evil is to assert that Goodness is a self-contradiction, which seems to be absurd; or it is to assert that existence is a self-contradiction, is blatantly is absurd.

6) So, our erstwhile atheist is backed into the corner of realizing that the "problem" is vastly misstated and misunderstood.

Victor, that some level of governmnet is necessary does not at all mitigate the fact that government is an evil; nore does it even begin to mitigate the fact that government's sole method of funding itself is indistinguishable from a Mafia protection racket -- "Give us your money and do what we tell you to do or we'll kill you."

Conservatism seem to revolve around three central ideas. One of the ideas is economic conservatism, the idea that we deserve what we earn unless it was taken by force, theft, or fraud. The second is national security conservatism, the idea of taking threats to our country seriously and being pro-active in dealing with them, as Reagan was during the Cold War and as Bush was when we launched a War on Terror that sent us into Iraq. This, I suspect, doesn't mix terribly well with economic conservatism, since war is expensive, and the money for guns and tanks probably can't be got from bake sales. And then there is social conservatism, the use of the government attempting to uphold traditional values, leading to anti-abortion/gay marriage positions. The last two increase the involvement of government. If government is out there trying to stop abortions fighting enemies, this has to be paid for.

It would be fair enough to ask if liberalism goes together as well. I suppose we could say liberals accept

1) The proactive role of government to alleviate poverty and its consequences.2) Restraint in fighting against supposed threats to our country (not going into Vietnam or Iraq).3) Upholding a strong doctrine of the separation of church and state, not attempting to bring the state into controversial question of value.

So, now the point of this post:

VR: "Conservatism seem to revolve around three central ideas. One of the ideas is economic conservatism, ... The second is national security conservatism, ... And then there is social conservatism, the use of the government attempting to uphold traditional values, leading to anti-abortion/gay marriage positions."

If you want three key ideas of conservativism, they are more likely to be:1) Government ... all government .. is coercive, by the very nature of government2) Human beings ... all human beings ... are perverse, by their very natures3) From which two observations it follows that government is a necessary evil

All truly conservative ideas/positions take account of those observations and especially of that conclusion. For instance: "That government which governs best is that which governs least."

VR: "The second is national security conservatism, the idea of taking threats to our country seriously and being pro-active in dealing with them, as Reagan was during the Cold War and as Bush was when we launched a War on Terror that sent us into Iraq. This, I suspect, doesn't mix terribly well with economic conservatism, since war is expensive, and the money for guns and tanks probably can't be got from bake sales."

If "liberals" really were as nuanced in their thinking as they like to imagine they are, this would not be such a stumper to them.

The primary duty of government -- and, gven that it is inherently an evil, THE ONLY THING about (human) government which justifies its existence -- is that those who would govern are sworn to defend those whom they would govern; or, failing defending them, they must avenge them. A government which will not do these two things forfeits any claim to legitimacy ... and, in the nature of things, must eventually train its guns upon its subjects if it will not train them upon the enemies, both foreign and domestic, of its subjects.

Indeed, war is expensive (*). But, just as there are things worse than death, so too are there things worse than war.

(*) Pace what doubtless we both were taught in school (and I saw through it at once even as a teen), war destroys wealth; war can never generate wealth. One might as well expect that a hurricane which wipes out a city will make all its people more wealthy. A hurricane destroys wealth and lives; war destroys lives and wealth.

VR: "The last two increase the involvement of government. If government is out there trying to stop abortions fighting enemies, this has to be paid for."

2) Human beings ... all human beings ... are perverse, by their very natures

Yes, stopping abortions before they are performed, or punishing those involved if the abortion could not be stopped would have to be paid for. By then, the same is true of stopping and/or punishing other forms of murder.

You really do need to do better than this -- your "liberalism" does not equate to an incoherency in conservatism.

VR: "And then there is social conservatism, the use of the government attempting to uphold traditional values, leading to anti-abortion/gay marriage positions. The last two increase the involvement of government."

Again, you really do need to do better than this.

The best -- meaning, the least coercive -- government will not be at war with the society it seeks to rule. As Reagan pointed out: "We are a nation that has a government-not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people."

With us, it is the nation, not the government, which is important and which properly sets the tone.

VR: "It would be fair enough to ask if liberalism goes together as well. I suppose we could say liberals accept

1) The proactive role of government to alleviate poverty and its consequences. "

The *only* proactive way to alleviate poverty is to generate wealth. "Liberal" "solutions" to poverty destroy wealth, both by destroying already existing wealth and by putting a damper on the creation of new wealth. But, "liberals" seem constitutionally unable to grasp the concept of baking new pies -- all they seem to grasp is slicing an ever-diminishing pie into smaller and smaller pieces.

Besides which, *where* does the US Constitution give even a hint that it is within the competence of the general government to "alleviate poverty and its consequences?"

VR: "2) Restraint in fighting against supposed threats to our country (not going into Vietnam or Iraq). "

That's right! It was conservatives who got us into Vietnam, despite that conservativism had been moribund since the time of that would-be fascist FDR.

You know, the problem with Vietnam, as with Korea, is not that we were there, but that we were not there to win it and to win it as quickly and humanely as possible.

The problem is so typically "liberal" -- we've stopped treating war as war; rather, we insist upon treating war as policing.

VR: "3) Upholding a strong doctrine of the separation of church and state, not attempting to bring the state into controversial question of value."

"Liberals" do so like to fool themselves, don't they? Seriously, who in his right mind can say with a straight face that "liberals" are not all about "attempting to bring the state into controversial question of value." Hell, "liberals" can't convince the people to their schemes, that's why they so love the coercive apparatus of the state.

The fact is, to govern just is to rule on questions of value and morality.

Compromise -- splitting the difference -- can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing; and it can also be utterly impossible to compromise.

For instance, suppose that I am criminally minded and I take it into my mind that it would be a good thing to murder you. You, on the other hand, are quite convinced that your death would not be such a good thing. So, how are you and I to compromise on this trivial issue? Perhaps I can be allowed to cut you in two at the waist (your really vital organs are above that point). That's a win-win compromise, isn't it?

Moreover, an uncompromising committment to compromise is a Very Bad Thing.

The person who foolishly imagines that compromise is the highest good will tend to insist that you are the trouble in the above scenario. For, you did adamantly refuse the proffered "compromise," did you not?

Just as it is impossible for you and me to compromise between my desire to murder you and your desire not to be murdered, it is likewise impossible to compromise between truth and non-truth. To put it bluntly: the world is black-and-white, after all.

It's quite popular these days to sing peans to relativism: to assert either that there is no such thing as objective truth -- especially in regard to morality -- or, that if there is, it cannot be known (and so, is unimportant). I refer to this "All The Pretty Shades Of Grey." Of course, the actual truth of the matter generally is not that people cannot distinguish black from white, but that they are disinclined to make the effort. After all, what is grey but unresolved black and white?

A few months ago I wrote a little parable about compromise and the sometime impossibility of compromise. Here is the context for which I wrote it (though, the idea has much wider applicability) -- on Victor Reppert's Dangerous Idea blog, as a comment to the No compromise on abortion? item:

Noìli's Custom Ice Cream Shoppe

One fine summer day, Wicktor Ruppert, as is his wont on fine summer days, was hiking in the Arizona desert. On this particular fine summer day, Wicktor was enjoying the hike in his favorite area of the desert, marvelling at all the dried-up scenery at which he'd marveled so many hundreds of times before.

Hike, hike, hike! Marvel, marvel, marvel!

In the early afternoon, Wicktor chanced to see a path he'd never seen before, branching off from the main trail. Now, Wicktor knew exactly what dried-up scenery he'd see if he continued on the main path, for, after all, he'd hiked this trail hundreds of times before. But this new path, what wonders of dried-up scenery might it not reveal?

And so, of course, on this particular fine summer day, Wicktor took the promising new path.

An hour later on the new path, and after much marvelling at fine new vistas of dried-up scenery, Wicktor was about to turn back. He'd long since eaten the food he'd brought (but was hungry again), he'd drunk much of the water he was carrying ... Wicktor knows better than to be out in the desert without water! It really was time to return to the comforts of the city.

Just then, Wicktor saw that just ahead the path entered a cleft. Now, this was much too promising of more marvels of dried-up scenery, so Wicktor decided to stick with the hike for fifteen minutes more.

Entering the defile and rounding a bend, Wicktor suddenly came upon the sight of a wonder indeed: -- a tidy little building bearing a sign reading: Noìli's Custom Ice Cream Shoppe.

Now, Wicktor was very curious and intrigued at this new wonder. And, as Wicktor was also hungry (and a great lover of new ice creams), naturally he entered the shoppe.

Noìli: Good afternoon! May I offer Sir some fine Custom Ice Cream?

Wicktor: That sound marvelous! What have you got?

Noìli: Anything you wish, Good Sir. At Noìli's Custom Ice Cream Shoppe, we are here to serve!

Wicktor: Ah. Hmmm, I see only one flavor listed on the board.

Noìli: Yes! 'The Streets of New York City;' for that is our custom offering, carefully custom blended to Sir's exact specifications.

Wicktor: I'm afraid I don't understand.

Noìli: Oh, I see. This is Sir's first visit to Noìli's Custom Ice Cream Shoppe?

Wicktor: Yes. In fact, I've never before encountered one.

Noìli: Well, one expects that -- we are a quite exclusive franchise.

Wicktor: I see many tubs of ice cream in the cooler, more than I can count.

Noìli: Yes, any flavor one wishes. At Noìli's Custom Ice Cream Shoppe, if we do not already have the flavor of ice cream Sir wishes, we can whip it up almost instantly.

Wicktor: But there's only one flavor listed on the board?

Noìli: Yes! 'The Streets of New York City;' our custom offering. This is what we serve at Noìli's Custom Ice Cream Shoppe.

Wicktor: I'm afraid I still don't understand.

Noìli: I'll try to explain.

Say that one wishes to patronize Noìli's Custom Ice Cream Shoppe (and I certainly encourage Sir to do so). Well, the first thing to do is to decide which flavor of ice cream Sir wishes.

Wicktor: Ummm ... vanilla?

Noìli: A fine, fine choice. And how many scoops?

Wicktor: Three. Two!

Noìli: An excellent decision, I must say!

Wicktor: And then what?

Noìli: And then, Discerning Sir, I will transform the vanilla ice cream which you have chosen into our custom offering: 'The Streets of New York City.'

Wicktor: Which is?

Noìli: Which is somewhat like 'Rocky Road' or 'Denali Moose Tracks.' At least in concept.

Wicktor: Ah, I see. Well, no I don't. Aside from being your custom offering, what, exactly, is 'The Streets of New York City?' What is the concept which makes it like 'Rocky Road' or 'Denali Moose Tracks?' If it is not a trade secret to tell me so, just how will you transform the vanilla ice cream which I have chosen into 'The Streets of New York City?'

Noìli: Sir is indeed discerning!

Wicktor: Oh! Well, thank you!

Noìli: It is like this. I will take these two scoops of the vanilla ice cream, which is the flavor Sir has selected, and I then will carefully and tenderly, lovingly almost, blend it with these two scoops of dog shit.

Wicktor: That's disgusting!

Noìli: But, Discerning Sir! This is highest quality dog shit, carefully harvest in the most exclusive neighborhoods of New York City and only of known provenance. This is pedigreed dog shit!

Wicktor: But it's dog shit!

Noìli: Yes, indeed. Did I not state that Sir is most discerning?

Wicktor: But I don't want dog shit in my ice cream!

Noìli: One does understand the emotion. But consider: when I have completed the blend, there will be no dog shit in Sir's ice cream -- there will be only the ice cream Sir has ordered: 'The Streets of New York City!'

Wicktor: That's disgusting! That's not ice cream, that's dog shit!

Noìli: *sigh* I had such high hopes for one so discerning as yourself, Sir. *sigh* Please, allow me to explain: yes, there *was* some dog shit, but now we see before us only the 'The Streets of New York City' ice cream. Here, enjoy!

Wicktor: That's not ice cream, that's dog shit!

Noìli: Sir is being most narrow-minded. May we not compromise on this?

Wicktor: ... How?

Noìli: I will throw out this batch of 'The Streets of New York City' ice cream, which is clearly not what Sir wants -- please, do not concern yourself at the waste! At Noìli's Custom Ice Cream Shoppe, we are a stable enough organization that we are able to eat such a minor loss.

Wicktor: ... And then?

Noìli: And then I will whip up for Sir a fresh serving 'The Streets of New York City' ice cream. But this time, I shall use the two scoops of vanilla ice cream and only *one* scoop of dog shit! This is, of course, Sir's loss, for I cannot discount the price for Sir.

Noìli: As I've carefully explained to Sir: here at Noìli's Custom Ice Cream Shoppe, we would never *think* to put dog shit in Sir's ice cream. In our fine establishment, we offer only the finest 'The Streets of New York City' ice cream!

Wicktor: I don't want dog shit in my ice cream!

Noìli: *sigh* I shall mix up a new batch of 'The Streets of New York City' ice cream. Say, two scoops of vanilla ice cream and one half scoop of dog shit?

Wicktor: No!

Noìli: Two scoops of vanilla ice cream and one quarter scoop of dog shit?

Wicktor: No!

Noìli: Two scoops of vanilla ice cream and an ounce or two of dog shit?

Wicktor: How may times must I say this: I don't want *any* dog shit in my ice cream!

Noìli: Two scoops of vanilla ice cream and I just wave the dog shit over it for a moment?

Noìli: Sir! Did we not agree to compromise? Whence comes this hateful, and quite frankly, bigoted stubbornness? Whence this binary, black-and-white, close-mindedness? Whence this irrational fanaticism on the matter?

*sigh* One becomes increasingly disappointed at the dimming prospects for men of good-will to compromise! *sigh*

Wicktor: I want pure ice cream!

Noìli: Sir, at Noìli's Custom Ice Cream Shoppe, we offer only the purest and finest of ice creams.

Wicktor: With dog shit in it!

Noìli: No, not at all, Sir! As I have so carefully explained to Sir, numerous times, when the blending is done, there is no longer any dog shit. Rather, there is only the finest 'The Streets of New York City' ice cream.

Wicktor: With dog shit in it!

Noìli: *sigh* Clearly, I was mistaken; Sir is not so discerning, after all.

Vanilla ice cream! Indeed!

(Colorizing the above text was second choice. Applying a blockquote to it also italicized it all, and I couldn't find a way to unitalicize it.)

People sometimes accuse me of being egocentric ... apparently, the accusation is supposed to be a show-stopper. However, as near as I can tell, the assusation typically boils down to: "Waaa! Why are't you bowing to my obvious superiority!?"

Anyway, when accused of being egocentric, I frequently reply, "Not at all! In truth, I am Iliocentric."

So: the name of this blog (*) -- Iliocentrism: a blog about things of interest to Ilíon (**). (*) and assuming that I put in the effort to consistently blog, which may be a huge assumption.

(**) My Christian name is 'Troy;' the name 'Ilíon' is an allusion to the name of the ancient city we English-speakers call 'Troy.'